<div dir="ltr"><p>I agree that if the submissions are substantially similar in content, we should reject all of them, whether on the basis of self-plagiarism or another appropriate policy ground.</p><p>However, if the submissions are meaningfully different, then the approach Erez suggested earlier makes more sense. Even in that case, I support limiting the number of submissions per author. OSDI has also introduced a submission limit this year. Such a rule would discourage authors from attempting this type of exploit in the future.</p><p>Reviewing workloads have increased significantly, and we should not ask reviewers to evaluate multiple AI-generated papers that differ only in minor ways. More importantly, we should develop a systematic method for identifying related cohorts of submissions, either with support from the submission platform or through another tool. This would allow us to apply the same policy consistently and fairly to everyone.</p><p>Regards,<br>-Ali</p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 7:03 AM Gala Yadgar via Hotstorage-sc <<a href="mailto:hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu">hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="msg-5971991889773120724">
<div lang="en-IL" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_-5971991889773120724WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">I share Anrdé's sentiment.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Submitting the same (or very similar) work as 10 different papers (or even two, for that matter) is abusing the system. AI makes it easier but is not necessarily the major problem
in this case. I hope the PC can find an assertive way to send the message that this is unacceptable.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">If the scenario is as extreme as I understand it, then I think that accepting even one of those papers is problematic, because it would mean that the trick worked and that there
was no penalty for the abuse.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Gala<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> =?utf-8?q?Brinkmann=2C_Prof=2E_Dr=2E_Andr=C3=A9_via_Hotstorage-sc?=
<<a href="mailto:hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a>> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 15, 2026 13:35<br>
<b>To:</b> Angela Demke Brown <<a href="mailto:demke@cs.toronto.edu" target="_blank">demke@cs.toronto.edu</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Andre Brinkmann <<a href="mailto:andre.brinkmann@uni-saarland.de" target="_blank">andre.brinkmann@uni-saarland.de</a>>; <a href="mailto:hotstorage-sc@hotstorage.org" target="_blank">hotstorage-sc@hotstorage.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Hotstorage-sc] Input regarding AI generated submissions to HS '26<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left" width="100%" style="width:100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="0" style="width:0.3pt;background:rgb(166,166,166);padding:5.25pt 1.5pt">
</td>
<td width="100%" style="background:revert;border:revert;color:revert;direction:revert;display:revert;font-size:revert;height:revert;letter-spacing:revert;line-height:revert;margin:revert;opacity:revert;outline:revert;overflow:revert;padding:revert;table-layout:revert;text-align:revert;text-indent:revert;text-orientation:revert;text-overflow:revert;text-transform:revert;vertical-align:revert;white-space:revert;width:revert;word-break:revert;word-spacing:revert;writing-mode:revert;zoom:revert">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:rgb(33,33,33)">Sie erhalten nicht häufig E-Mails von
<a href="mailto:hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a>.
<a href="https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification" target="_blank">Erfahren Sie, warum dies wichtig ist</a>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</td>
<td width="75" style="background:revert;border:revert;color:revert;direction:revert;display:revert;font-size:revert;height:revert;letter-spacing:revert;line-height:revert;margin:revert;opacity:revert;outline:revert;overflow:revert;padding:revert;table-layout:revert;text-align:revert;text-indent:revert;text-orientation:revert;text-overflow:revert;text-transform:revert;vertical-align:revert;white-space:revert;width:revert;word-break:revert;word-spacing:revert;writing-mode:revert;zoom:revert">
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All, <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Reviewing is not much fun at the moment, and I assume that nearly any submitted paper uses some kind of AI support ... The difference here, from my perspective, is that the authors have submitted so many papers with similar techniques.
They are therefore speculating that, statistically, some of these papers will be accepted, which is an unfair advantage compared to other authors. I would therefore desk reject for "self-plagiarism".<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">André<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">On 15. Jul 2026, at 03:43, Angela Demke Brown via Hotstorage-sc <<a href="mailto:hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We ran into something similar with SOSP. In our case it was 9 papers from one company/pair of authors and 6 papers from another company and pair of authors, which on investigation appeared to be the same authors using different first names.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Given the lack of policy in the CFP on generative AI use, and the ACM authorship policies, we felt we couldn't do anything other than (a) ask the authors to explain their use of AI and (b) let the papers be rejected on the basis of their
quality. The authors in our case claimed AI use only to polish their writing, which is generally allowed.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have no solutions to offer to HotStorage, unfortunately. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All the best, <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Angela <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 7:50<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span>p.m. Ashvin Goel via Hotstorage-sc <<a href="mailto:hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">The 10 papers were submitted by the same set of authors. <u></u>
<u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ashvin<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 8:28<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span>PM Erez Zadok <<a href="mailto:ezk@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">ezk@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">That is a hotly debated topic nowadays among ACM EiCs and multiple conferences. We just had heated debates about this on the ACM ATC SC too. Different people are trying different things to varying degrees
of success, from requiring disclosure by authors, to automated tools, etc. No perfect solutions. ACM seems to have given up on getting an AI-detection tools but are looking into cite-checking tools.<br>
<br>
ACM recently loosened their AI policy: they no longer prohibit it outright but ask authors to disclose AI use if wanted, then ask the reviewers to decide what, if, and how much AI use is ok or not ok. IOW, ACM now shifted the burden onto reviewers. Some are
ok with this change, others less so.<br>
<br>
One problem with any AI detectors is that actual text can easily be flagged as AI-generated even if the authors use AI to spell check, polish the text, or ask AI to shrink the text size: these are considered valid uses of AI that shouldn’t result in rejection.<br>
<br>
That said, the easiest way to catch bad AI use is via citation checks. At TOS, we now validate each citation of a submission before sending it off to be reviewed. Even with search tools, that’s more work but we have no choice: recently we caught several papers
with bad/hallucinated cites deep into the reviewing process (thus wasting reviewers’ precious time). Any paper with obviously bad/hallucinated cites gets desk-rejected, but we also email the authors to see if they can explain themselves first.<br>
<br>
So my suggestions are:<br>
<br>
1. Papers with obviously large portions of AI text should be rejected with minimal reviews. If authors didn’t spend any significant effort to develop the paper, then our reviewers shouldn’t waste their time either. “You get what you paid for” principle.<br>
<br>
2. Papers with too many hallucinated cites should be rejected right away without review. 1-2 cites max may be considered a silly mistake that students sometimes make (I’d ask the authors), but any more should be rejected.<br>
<br>
3. I don’t think we should limit the number of submissions per author. While rare, it’s possible to see 2-3 papers submitted by a subset of the same authors. Now, when you say “a set of authors had submitted 10 papers,” *how many* are in the set?! Is it
the same exact authors who submitted 10 separate papers?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Erez.<br>
<br>
> On Jul 14, 2026, at 2:18<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span>PM, Ashvin Goel via Hotstorage-sc <<a href="mailto:hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Hi all,<br>
> <br>
> The HS '26 PC chairs (Young-ri and Bryan) are asking for input from us regarding a set of paper submissions that have likely been AI generated. Two reviewers expressed concerns to the chairs. They found several papers with similar concepts applied to different
areas, following a similar structure, language (including hard to understand or strange words) and flaws. The chairs found that a set of authors had submitted 10 papers (13% of the 79 submissions). The reviewers are currently leaning negative on several of
these papers, pointing out that the papers are difficult to understand, describe concepts vaguely, and use unfamiliar language. The positive-leaning papers will be discussed at the PC meeting.<br>
> <br>
> The chairs are looking for input about the best course of action to handle this case of suspected AI-generated papers. On the one hand, ACM allows the use of undisclosed AI. Thus, rejections should be grounded on the paper's technical contribution and novelty,
rather than AI use, which is hard to detect accurately using current AI detection tools. On the other hand, such AI-generated papers will overwhelm reviewers in the future.<br>
> <br>
> Let me know if you have any specific suggestions regarding handling the current case with the 10 submissions. More broadly, we should discuss if HS should put in place any policies for AI generated papers. Here are some examples I have seen:<br>
> <br>
> 1. Using multiple detectors and letting reviewers know so they can decide<br>
> 2. Desk rejecting papers with hallucinated references<br>
> 3. Limiting number of submissions by authors<br>
> <br>
> Thanks<br>
> Ashvin<br>
> -- <br>
> Hotstorage-sc mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">Hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a><br>
> <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fhotstorage-sc&c=E,1,z8DobtW1BkooL5a0UNH0Ce6rw30e6DGipeCv9AQMN7tsuC2XM5d49YemzXRXUt7_W7l9VJuVm9ocASktZsTHaM-UuclKlYotowsgGzwhcHIBze7dcUCBCIUP4A,,&typo=1" target="_blank">
https://lists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/hotstorage-sc</a><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
Hotstorage-sc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">Hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a><br>
<a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fhotstorage-sc&c=E,1,OKoPXtu-mnaObnaEK68Trt0G3VMUZwc93VDvfavS9cNBfYCht-8zuM58VHWnfOJdnjBoRMsQLMz7gLHKV0QQvDEiNH59_5rsUcssAKf8bcEuFzI6No1n&typo=1" target="_blank">https://lists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/hotstorage-sc</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
Hotstorage-sc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">Hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a><br>
<a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fhotstorage-sc&c=E,1,fjHwe0z08xZ16GBMBIKts4hz1-ZBF7QclPPfzoixqTQGRTfupgTjbL3oaaKv3CLRphWVOHG6YJ5SDJeKfPRpXv9aNruWrCvS1dYGLLliuMi3tA5q2S4qKmRA7e4h&typo=1&ancr_add=1" target="_blank">https://lists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/hotstorage-sc</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Hotstorage-sc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">Hotstorage-sc@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a><br>
<a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2flists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fhotstorage-sc&c=E,1,lAPnJvqR92iGPUK2fa-z1YSNms9ejuxSDj1NQatyMtzm49i637UUy8cXEXSWMWQcl8IRsKy8LtNl98Ctl3z9yyezQDklLvem2RXGTViW-Jb8&typo=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/hotstorage-sc</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div>